Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
|
|
- Antony Beasley
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DAVID C. RODEARMEL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) No. 1:09-cv RBW-JR ) v. ) Honorable Karen LeCraft Henderson ) Honorable James Robertson HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, et al. ) Honorable Reggie B. Walton ) Defendants. ) ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. Paul J. Orfanedes D.C. Bar No James F. Peterson D.C. Bar No School Street, S.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C (202) August 20, 2009 Attorneys for Plaintiff
2 Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 2 of 20 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities... iii Memorandum of Law...1 I. Plaintiff Has Demonstrated Standing to Bring this Action A. Plaintiff Has Shown a Concrete, Particularized Injury Caused By Defendants Conduct...1 B. Plaintiff s Injuries Are Judicially Redressable II. Summary Judgment Should Be Granted In Favor of Plaintiff As Mrs. Clinton s Appointment Is Contrary to the Plain Language of the Ineligibility Clause A. The Text of the Ineligibility Clause Is Unambiguous and Precise B. A Plain Language Interpretation of the Ineligibility Clause Is Reinforced by the Purposes Underlying the Ineligibility Clause C. Recent Disregard of the Ineligibility Clause Does Not Justify Further Violations...13 Conclusion...15 ii
3 Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 3 of 20 Cases TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475 (D.C. Cir. 1984)...7 Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968)...2, 3, 6 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)...7 Camps Newfound/Owatnonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 564 (1997)...11 City of South Lake Tahoe v. California Regional Planning Agency, 625 F.2d 231 (9th Cir. 1980)...3 Clarke v. United States, 705 F. Supp. 605 (D.D.C. 1988)...2, 3, 6 Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676 (1972)...3 Colm v. Vance, 567 F.2d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1977)... 2 Dalack v. Village of Tequesta, Fla., 434 F. Supp.2d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2006)...3 District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct (2008)...9, 11 Franklin Savings Ass n v. Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, 740 F. Supp (D. Kan. 1990)...7 Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662 (1889)...9 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)...11 iii
4 Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 4 of 20 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.) Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)...6 Michael v. Anderson, 14 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 1994)...4 Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm'r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (1983)...11 Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548 (1900)...2 Town of Charlestown v. United States, 696 F. Supp. 800 (D.R.I. 1988)...3 U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)...11 United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931)...9 U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)...11 Welch v. Texas Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468 (1987)...11 Constitutional Provisions, Statutes, and Other Authorities U.S. Const., art. I, 6, cl passim U.S. Const., art. VI, cl U.S.C Pub. L , 122 Stat (codified at 5 U.S.C. 5312, note) , 7 37 Cong. Ch. 128; 12 Stat. 502 (1962) Cong. 46; 23 Stat. 22 (1884)...3 iv
5 Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 5 of 20 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.) Miscellaneous 17 Op. Att y Gen. 365 (1882) Op. O.L.C. (2007); 2007 OLC LEXIS 3 (April 16, 2007) Memorandum for the Counselor to the Atty. General from Charles J. Cooper Re: Ineligibility to Assume a Vacancy on the Supreme Court (Aug. 24, 1987)...11, 12, 15 John F. O Connor, The Emoluments Clause: An Anti-Federalist Intruder in a Federalist Constitution, 24 HOFSTRA L. REV. 89 (1995) Joseph Story, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 1838 (1833)...3, 4 U.S. Office of Personnel Management Website, 3 v
6 Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 6 of 20 Plaintiff David C. Rodearmel, by counsel, respectfully submits this reply in support of his cross-motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff s Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff s Memorandum in Support of His Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment ( Plaintiff s Opening Brief ) and herein, Plaintiff has demonstrated fully his standing to bring this case. Furthermore, Mrs. Clinton s appointment is contrary to the plain language of Article I, section 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution ( Ineligibility Clause ) and cannot be fixed by Congress. Because no issues of material fact are in dispute, Plaintiff s cross-motion for summary judgment should be granted. MEMORANDUM OF LAW I. Plaintiff Has Demonstrated Standing to Bring this Action. A. Plaintiff Has Shown a Concrete, Particularized Injury Caused By Defendants Conduct. Plaintiff has demonstrated that he is being injured in his employment by being required to serve under, take direction from, and report to a constitutionally ineligible superior, Mrs. Clinton. This is because Plaintiff has been placed in a position where he either must violate his oath of office or risk substantial, adverse consequences to his employment. This constitutes a direct, personal, and concrete injury for purposes of establishing standing to bring this action. Plaintiff also enjoys a property right in his continued employment as a U.S. Foreign Service Officer, and being required to serve under, take direction from, and report to a constitutionally ineligible superior, in violation of Plaintiff s oath of office, also constitutes a material, adverse change in the terms and conditions of Plaintiff s employment and injures Plaintiff s property right in that continuing employment. 1
7 Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 7 of 20 Significantly, Defendants do not contest that oath of office standing continues to be a viable and entirely valid basis for establishing standing, as demonstrated by Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968) and Clarke v. United States, 705 F. Supp. 605 (D.D.C. 1988). Instead, Defendants repeat their dismissive description of Plaintiff s injury as mere abstract outrage and reiterate their ineffectual attempt to distinguish Allen. Defs. Reply at 3. As previously demonstrated, Plaintiff s injury is even more concrete and compelling than the injuries suffered by the board members in Allen and the city council members in Clarke. The officials in Allen and Clarke had no property right to their elected, public office. Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548 (1900). By contrast, foreign service officers such as Plaintiff clearly enjoy a property right in their continued federal employment. Colm v. Vance, 567 F.2d 1125, 1129, n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Mrs. Clinton s appointment and continuance, which places Plaintiff in the untenable position of violating his oath of office or facing possible disciplinary action, including removal, for insubordination or other, related grounds, constitutes a material, adverse change in Plaintiff s continuing federal employment and causes injury to his property interest in that employment. Defendants contention that no unconstitutional action has been required of Plaintiff simply belies the reality of the conflict raised by Mrs. Clinton s appointment. It is undisputed that Plaintiff is required to serve under, take direction from, and ultimately report to Mrs. Clinton. Like the plaintiffs in Allen and Clarke, Plaintiff is being required to engage in conduct - 2
8 Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 8 of 20 - in this instance, to serve under, take direction from, and ultimately report to a constitutionally 1 ineligible superior -- that clearly is contrary to his oath. Although Defendants trivialize, if not denigrate, Plaintiff s oath as a mere general pledge 2 to behave lawfully, the oath of office means much more than that, as the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals recognized in Allen and Clarke. Indeed, oaths have long played an important role in affirming the authority of the federal government and the supremacy of federal law, if not fidelity to the rule of law. The oath taken by Plaintiff, a retired U.S. Army Judge Advocate General Reserve Officer with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, a Foreign Service Officer, and an Officer of the United States, dates from the Civil War. See 37 Cong. Ch. 128; 12 Stat. 502 (1962); see also U.S. Office of Personnel Management Website, It was revised by Congress in 1884 to reflect its present form. See 48 Cong. 46; 23 Stat. 22 (1884). In 1966, it was recodified at Title 5, Section The Constitution in fact requires that Officers of the United States shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation[] to support this Constitution. U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 3. Nearly two centuries ago, Joseph Story wrote: That all those, who are entrusted with the execution of the powers of the national government, should be bound by some solemn obligation to the due execution of 1 Certainly, the law does not require Plaintiff to resign his employment in order to have suffered a sufficiently concrete and personal harm to establish standing. Defendants do not assert that it does. This property interest also differentiates this case from cases such as City of South Lake Tahoe v. California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 625 F. 2d 231 (9th Cir. 1980), and Town of Charlestown v. United States, 696 F. Supp. 800 (D.R.I. 1988) brought by elected public officials who enjoyed no property right in their public offices. 2 The authorities on which Defendants rely concern challenges to state loyalty oaths by persons who objected to taking the oaths. See Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676 (1972); Dalack v. Village of Tequesta, Fla., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2006). 3
9 Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 9 of 20 the trusts reposed in them, and to support the constitution, would seem to be a proposition too clear to render any reasoning necessary in support of it. It results from the plain right of civil society to require some guaranty from every officer, that he will be conscientious in the discharge of his duty. Oaths have a solemn obligation upon the minds of all reflecting men, and especially upon those, who feel a deep sense of accountability to a Supreme being. 3 Joseph Story, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 1838 (1833). The injury Plaintiff is suffering to his oath and to his property interest in his employment is a very real, concrete, and personal harm. In addition to being concrete and personal, Plaintiff s injury also is particularized in a narrow and discrete way. Contrary to Defendants assertion, Plaintiff does dispute that his injury is shared by hundreds of thousand... or even millions of others who also swore an oath to the Constitution. Defs. Reply at 5. This is a misrepresentation of Plaintiff s argument. Plaintiff s injury is unique to Plaintiff. It is irrelevant to any standing analysis that other persons, even many other persons, may have taken the same oath Plaintiff has taken. Defendants assert that a narrow view of oath of office standing is necessary to prevent every oath-taking federal employee from becoming potential litigants. Defs. Reply at 3 n.2. Defendants argument fails to recognize well-established precedent holding that an injury can be suffered by a number of people, even a great number of people, and still be suffered by an individual plaintiff in a particular and personal way. See Michael v. Anderson, 14 F.3d 623, 626 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ( That an injury is widespread, however, does not mean that it cannot form the basis for a case in federal court as long as each person can be said to have suffered a distinct and concrete harm. ). 4
10 Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 10 of 20 Defendants floodgates argument (Defs. Reply at 5-6) also disregards the fact that Plaintiff is part of far classification of federal employees, as he is a U.S. Foreign Service Officer, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and thus an Officer of the United States, a position to which is delegated a portion, albeit small, of the sovereign powers of the United States. 31 Op. O.L.C. (2007); 2007 OLC LEXIS 3, **12-74 (April 16, 2007). Having to serve under, take direction from, and report to a constitutionally ineligible superior a constitutionally ineligible superior certain diminishes the office to which an Officer of the United States has been appointed, if not the sovereign power of the United States that has been delegated to that officer. Under Defendants cribbed theory of standing, however, not even an Officer of the United States can maintain a challenge to violation of the Constitution that affects his or her own office, which is the injury Plaintiff seeks to remedy here. Furthermore, Defendants ignore that Plaintiff is proceeding under a statute expressly enacted to permit judicial review of the issue presented in this case. See Pub. L , 122 Stat (codified at 5 U.S.C. 5312, note). That provision states, in pertinent part: Any person aggrieved by an action of the Secretary of State may bring a civil action... to contest the constitutionality of the appointment and continuance in office of the Secretary of State on the ground that such appointment and continuance in office is in violation of article I, section 6, clause 2 of the Constitution. Id. at 1(b)(1). The fact that Plaintiff is proceeding under this statute, which obviously relates to the unique situation of Mrs. Clinton insofar as it restores the compensation paid to Secretary of State to its pre-2007 level for precisely the same period of time as Mrs Clinton s second U.S. Senate term, defeats Defendants purported concern that, if this Court were to reaffirm the oath 5
11 Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 11 of 20 standing of Allen and Clarke, anyone who has taken an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution would have standing to challenge any executive branch action they believe to be unconstitutional. Finally, Defendants argument that Plaintiff s injury is attributable more to the President who appointed her, rather than the Department of State or Mrs. Clinton, while incorrect, is of no consequence. Defs. Reply at 6. Plaintiff s injury results from being required to serve under, take direction from, and report to a constitutionally ineligible officer. That officer, plainly, is Mrs. Clinton. In any event, to the extent that the President is deemed in any way a necessary party to this litigation, Plaintiff s Complaint can be amended quickly to include him in this action. B. Plaintiff s Injuries Are Judicially Redressable. Defendants do not attempt to dispute the fundamental doctrine that it is within the Court s power to say what the law is with respect to the constitutionality of Mrs. Clinton s appointment and to give effect to its ruling. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). It is also undisputed that the U.S. Congress specifically enacted legislation providing for this Court to hear and rule upon a challenge to the precise constitutional issue raised in this case. See Pub. L , 122 Stat Instead, Defendants desperately try to miscast this case as implicating the President s removal power. Defs. Reply at To the contrary, as demonstrated previously (Pltfs. Br. at 15-19), Plaintiff is seeking declaratory and/or injunctive relief under this Court s inherent power to say what the law is. Defendants repeated invocation of the President s removal power and impeachment are red herrings, as not only did Congress create a mechanism to consider contests to the constitutionality of the appointment and continuance in office of the Secretary of State on the ground that such appointment and continuance in office is in violation of article I, section 6, 6
12 Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 12 of 20 clause 2 of the Constitution (see Pub. L , 122 Stat. 5036), but this Court clearly has the power to redress Plaintiff s injuries, through either declaratory relief or a narrowly tailored injunction. In fact, the logical conclusion of Defendants argument is that the constitutionality of any appointment is unreviewable by the courts. Not only is that not the case, but it is directly contrary to the very same statute by which Mrs. Clinton claims to be eligible to serve as Secretary of State. Defendants also suggest that Mrs. Clinton s appointment is unreviewable for the same reasons that the actions of constitutionally defective appointees are not subject to review. See Defs. Reply at 8 (citing, e.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 142 (1976)). Defendants appear to invoke the de facto officer doctrine, which provides that a governmental action will be upheld even if the official that took the action was not properly in that office in the interest of orderly government. See, e.g., Franklin Savings Ass n v. Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, 740 F. Supp. 1535, 1541 (D. Kan. 1990) (citations omitted). Again, Congress expressly created a remedy, which is the very same remedy Plaintiff has invoked in this lawsuit, to allow for judicial review of Mrs. Clinton s appointment. The de facto officer doctrine therefore is plainly inapplicable. Moreover, the D.C. Circuit has recognized an exception to the de facto officer doctrine in situations when the plaintiff brings an action at or around the time of challenged governmental action and the agency has notice of the defect in the officer s authority to act. Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1499 (D.C. Cir. 1984). This lawsuit was filed only nine (9) days after Mrs. Clinton took office, and Defendants obviously had notice as to the constitutional issue presented by the appointment, as the issue was presented squarely in the very same statute that Defendants claim restored Mrs. Clinton s eligibility to serve as Secretary of State. Hence, 7
13 Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 13 of 20 even if the de facto officer doctrine was somehow relevant to this case, which it is not, it would support the Court s power to review the constitutionality of Mrs. Clinton s appointment. II. Summary Judgment Should Be Granted In Favor of Plaintiff As Mrs. Clinton s Appointment Is Contrary to the Plain Language of the Ineligibility Clause. It is undisputed that the emoluments of the office of the Secretary of State increased during the Senate term to which Mrs. Clinton was elected (January 2007 through January 2013). This increase rendered Mrs. Clinton ineligible for appointment to any civil office under the Authority of the United States under Art. I, sec. 6, cl. 2. Defendants contend that a subsequent legislative fix by Congress restored Mrs. Clinton s constitutional eligibility for office. Defendants, however, have no explanation as to why, if Framers had intended to allow for such a legislative remedy, no such provision exists. As Plaintiff set forth in his Opening Brief, the Framers clearly knew how to provide for Congress to make exceptions and allow Congress to remove otherwise strict Constitutional prohibitions. See Pltfs. Br. at The Ineligibility Clause plainly does not provide for any such legislative end runs to try to cure a Member s ineligibility. As demonstrated in Plaintiff s Opening Brief, a plain language application of the Ineligibility Clause is entirely proper and also consistent with the purposes underlying the Clause. In response, Defendants only offer an extra-textual interpretation of the Ineligibility Clause, proposing to insert the words on net into the otherwise unambiguous language of the provision. Neither the plain language nor the history of the Ineligibility Clause support such a modification. Because Mrs. Clinton s appointment is contrary to the unambiguous language of 8
14 Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 14 of 20 the Ineligibility Clause, and no material facts are in dispute, Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment. A. The Text of the Ineligibility Clause Is Unambiguous and Precise. As demonstrated in Plaintiff s Opening Brief, the Ineligibility Clause contains no ambiguity to justify looking beyond the plain language of the provision. Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662 (1889) (stating that the purpose behind a provision is to be found in the instrument itself; and when the text of a constitutional provision is not ambiguous, the courts, in giving construction thereto, are not at liberty to search for its meaning beyond the instrument. ). The language of the Ineligibility Clause is readily understood, as demonstrated, in particular, by the significant efforts by the political branches to avoid its plain stricture. District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2788 (2008) (quoting United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 731 (1931) (explaining that courts are guided by the principle that [t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning. ). The only ambiguity relating to the Ineligibility Clause arises from Defendants extra-textual interpretation of the Clause, specifically the attempted insertion of the words on net into the otherwise clear language of the provision. Curiously, Defendants suggest that Plaintiff did not offer analysis of the text or grammar 3 of the Clause. Defs. Reply at 12. Plaintiff did, in fact, set forth a detailed analysis of the text of the provision, by, for example, contrasting it with other provisions of the Constitution less capable of precise definition, such as the Due Process Clause. Pltfs. Br. at 22. Plaintiff 3 In contrast, Defendants analysis of the text consists of citations to unrelated th works of 18 century literature and strained grammatical interpretations manufactured for the purpose of avoiding the plain language interpretation of the Clause. 9
15 Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 15 of 20 discussed how the Ineligibility Clause, like other bright-line restrictions in the Constitution, is properly applied according to its literal interpretation. Id. Plaintiff further demonstrated how the Ineligibility Clause, in striking contrast with other nearby provisions of the Constitution, does not include an exception for a legislative enactment to the prohibition. Id. at This analysis, casually dismissed by Defendant, confirms that a plain language interpretation and application of the Ineligibility Clause is entirely proper as the provision is precise and clear. Instead, Defendants continue to argue that two additional words on net should be read into the Ineligibility Clause in order to restore Mrs. Clinton s eligibility. Defendants on net theory of constitutional interpretation, however, is not a proper approach toward assessing Constitutional violations. The Court should reject Defendants suggestion to modify the provision. B. A Plain Language Interpretation of the Ineligibility Clause Is Reinforced by the Purposes Underlying the Ineligibility Clause. As discussed in Plaintiff s Opening Brief, a review of the history and purposes of the Ineligibility Clause, while not necessary to resolve this case, provides compelling support for a plain language interpretation of the provision. Significantly, absent from the historical record of the Constitution, and also Defendants brief, is any support for an on net theory of constitutional interpretation. Also missing is any historical evidence in support of the proposition that Framers contemplated that a legislator s eligibility could be restored via legislative fix. It is not in dispute that the Ineligibility Clause is the product of a carefully balanced compromise between advocates of no restriction on legislators holding office and those who 10
16 Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 16 of 20 favored a total prohibition. As set forth in Plaintiff s Opening Brief, and acknowledged by Defendants, Federalists, such as Alexander Hamilton, generally opposed any limitation on holding office. Pltfs. Br. at 24. On the other side, advocates of ineligibility for office, including numerous prominent Anti-Federalists, believed that a prohibition was essential to maintain separation between the branches (Pltfs. Br. at 25) and to limit the growth of the national government (Id. at 25-27). Defendants argue that, because a compromise limited the scope of the prohibition, the purposes of those who fought for the Ineligibility Clause deserve lesser (or no) consideration. 4 Defs. Reply at 16. On the contrary, it essential to account for the concerns on both sides to understand the compromise reached by the Framers. As Plaintiff previously discussed, the primary concerns of proponents of ineligibility were broad and intended to affect the behavior of the legislature as a whole. As the Department of Justice s Office of Legal Counsel has explained: [The Framers] sought to avoid the spectacle of legislators seeking an office throughout their term at the expense of their constituents. They therefore tried to limit the instances in which the executive could offer such enticements to legislators. Thus, to the extent that lowering salaries of vacant offices increases 4 Defendants also suggest that reliance on the views of the Anti-Federalists is disfavored. Defs. Reply at 16. The U.S. Supreme Court and other courts, however, regularly reference the writings of the Anti-Federalists to aid in understanding the intentions of the Framers. See, e.g., District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2801 (2008); Camps Newfound/Owatnonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 564, (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting); U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring); U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, (1995) (Thomas, J., dissenting); McIntyre v Ohio Elections Comm n, 514 U.S. 334, 373 (1995) (Scalia, J., dissenting); Welch v. Texas Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 482 (1987) (Powell, J., concurring); Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm'r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, (1983) (O'Connor, J., writing for the majority). 11
17 Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 17 of 20 the frequency of such appointments, it serves to frustrate the intentions of the Framers. See Defs. Exh. 2 at 6 (Mem. for the Counselor to the Atty. General, from Charles J. Cooper Re: Ineligibility to Assume a Vacancy on the Supreme Court (Aug. 24, 1987) (hereafter 1987 OLC Opinion ). 5 Most importantly, by understanding the broad concerns of advocates of the Ineligibility Clause, it becomes clear that temporarily decreasing the salary of an office actually undermines the purpose behind the Clause. As Plaintiff previously demonstrated, and unresponded to by Defendants, a legislative fix by which eligibility can be restored at any point for any office effectively removes any incentive for legislators not to pursue such offices at the expense of their constituents or increase the size of government. The Anti-Federalists particularly feared the emergence of a permanent political class which would want to increase the power and size of the central government by taxing the nation. See John F. O Connor, The Emoluments Clause: An Anti-Federalist Intruder in a Federalist Constitution, 24 HOFSTRA L. REV. 89, (1995). If federal offices are available without any limitation, this promotes legislators becoming part of a permanent political class and detached from their local communities. Id. Only if the Ineligibility Clause is interpreted consistent with its plain language, by disqualifying Members 5 As Plaintiff previously noted, a legislative fix also is ineffectual, and plainly contrary to the letter and spirit of the Ineligibility Clause, because nothing prevents Congress from reducing the salary of the office the day before the Member is nominated, and then restoring the full salary the day after the Member assumes the office. See 1987 O.L.C. Op. at 6-7. This further demonstrates how a legislative fix effectively removes any incentive for Congress to restrain the salaries of these offices, given that a fix is available to remove their ineligibility for any particular office. 12
18 Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 18 of 20 from holding these offices, are the broad purposes behind the Ineligibility Clause given full effect. In summary, the Ineligibility Clause represents a careful compromise by the Framers, with a limited period of ineligibility and with no exceptions. Any legislative fix is nothing more than an evasion of this carefully considered compromise. However inconvenient it may be to legislators seeking office, the plain language and purpose behind the Ineligibility Clause cannot be ignored. C. Recent Disregard of the Ineligibility Clause Does Not Justify Further Violations. In his Opening Memorandum, Plaintiff demonstrated that, until relatively recently, the Ineligibility Clause was readily understood and applied consistent with its plain language. In fact, the earliest application of the Ineligibility Clause and most contemporaneous with the framing of the Constitution involved a nomination by President Washington that clearly demonstrated an adherence to a plain language interpretation of the Clause. Pltfs. Br. at The historical examples cited by Plaintiff, and that Defendant tries to distinguish, demonstrate that until relatively recently the Ineligibility Clause was readily understood and applied consistent with its plain language. See Pltfs. Br. at For example, the opinion of U.S. Attorney General Benjamin Harris Brewster in 1882 (relied on by the 1987 OLC Opinion) found nothing ambiguous about the Ineligibility Clause and no need to review its purposes. 17 Op. Att y Gen. 365 (1882). Defendants are correct that deviation from the plain language of the Ineligibility Clause began with the nomination of Senator Philander Knox in 1909, continued with the nomination of 13
19 Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 19 of 20 William Saxbe as Attorney General in 1973, and now the appointment at issue here. The key point, however, is that no number of violations of the Ineligibility Clause by the political branches can excuse further violations. Defendants objection to Plaintiff s description of the issue as still controversial strains credulity. Defs. Reply at 18. Even if Senator Byrd has abandoned his long-held view as to the validity of a legislative fix, this hardly demonstrates that the political branches have reached a consensus as to the issue. Of course, until this case, it was the considered opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel, since at least 1987, that a plain language interpretation is appropriate and that a legislative fix is ineffectual. 6 Hence, the history shows that, contrary to Defendants representation, no consistent constitutional practice justifies Defendants on net interpretation of the Ineligibility Clause or any legislative fix to restore a legislator s eligibility. On the contrary, the historical practice indicates that the plain language of the Ineligibility Clause has been readily understood, but at times circumvented for personal expediency by the political branches. Prior violations of the Ineligibility Clause, however, provide no principled justification for further disregard. Finally, Plaintiff notes Defendants retreat from the May 20, 2009 OLC Opinion, issued apparently to try to buttress Defendants arguments in this case. Defendants, in particular, object to Plaintiff s description of OLC s consistent legal advice being altered for use in this litigation. Defs. Reply at 22-23; Pltfs. Br. at 31. As an initial matter, a position held for at least 22 years, until it was cast aside for this litigation, would seem to constitute consistent legal 6 As Plaintiff previously pointed out, and Defendants do not contest, the May 20, 2009 OLC Opinion was issued contrary to OLC s practice to avoid involvement in pending litigation. 14
20 Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 28 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 20 of 20 advice. In any event, this characterization of the consistent position of OLC (or at least the Department of Justice) originated, not with Plaintiff, but was stated in the 1987 OLC Opinion. See p. 3 ( Opinions of the Attorney General going back over one hundred years further demonstrate the force of the Ineligibility Clause. ). CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and in Plaintiff s Opening Brief, Plaintiff has standing to challenge Mrs. Clinton s appointment. Plaintiff also has demonstrated that Mrs. Clinton s appointment is contrary to the plain language of the Ineligibility Clause and cannot be fixed by Congress. Plaintiff respectfully requests that summary judgment in his favor be entered now. Respectfully submitted, JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. /s/ Paul J. Orfanedes D.C. Bar No /s/ James F. Peterson D.C. Bar No School Street, S.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C (202) Dated: August 20, 2009 Attorneys for Plaintiff 15
Case 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 17 Filed 07/02/2009 Page 1 of 43 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:09-cv-00171-RBW-JR Document 17 Filed 07/02/2009 Page 1 of 43 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DAVID C. RODEARMEL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) No. 1:09-cv-00171-RBW-JR ) v. )
More informationNo. In The. DAVID C. RODEARMEL, Appellant, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, et al., Appellees. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
No. In The DAVID C. RODEARMEL, Appellant, v. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, et al., Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT PAUL J. ORFANEDES
More informationCONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATION EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE FBI DIRECTOR
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATION EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE FBI DIRECTOR It would be constitutional for Congress to enact legislation extending the term of Robert S. Mueller, III, as Director of the Federal
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-1281 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD PETITIONER, v. NOEL CANNING, A DIVISION OF THE NOEL CORP. RESPONDENTS. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court
More informationCase 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 12 Filed 05/20/2009 Page 1 of 47 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:09-cv-00171-RBW-JR Document 12 Filed 05/20/2009 Page 1 of 47 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DAVID C. RODEARMEL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 1:09-cv-00171-RBW-JR v. ) ) Honorable
More informationCase 1:16-cv RJL Document 152 Filed 08/28/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:16-cv-00236-RJL Document 152 Filed 08/28/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., v. BRIAN NEWBY, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., et al., Plaintiffs ) Civil Action 2:06-CV- 11972 ) Judge Edmunds v. ) ) GEORGE W.
More informationTHE SPECIAL COUNSEL IS AN INFERIOR OFFICER
April 24, 2018 The Honorable Charles Grassley Chairman U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Washington, DC 20510-6275 The Honorable Dianne Feinstein Ranking Member U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 141, Original In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS, PLAINTIFF v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO AND STATE OF COLORADO ON THE EXCEPTION BY THE UNITED STATES TO THE FIRST INTERIM REPORT OF THE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA, MISSOULA DIVISION
MARK L. SHURTLEFF Utah Attorney General PO Box 142320 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2320 Phone: 801-538-9600/ Fax: 801-538-1121 email: mshurtleff@utah.gov Attorney for Amici Curiae States UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationFlorida v. HHS - Amicus Brief of John Boehner
Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Litigation Research Projects and Empirical Data 1-1-2011 Florida v. HHS - Amicus Brief of John Boehner John Boehner
More informationCase 1:09-cv RBW-JR Document 12-2 Filed 05/20/2009 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:09-cv-00171-RBW-JR Document 12-2 Filed 05/20/2009 Page 1 of 14 We recently have reconsidered the question whether legislation to roll back a salary increase for an executive office can ensure compliance
More informationDESIGNATION OF ACTING SOLICITOR OF LABOR MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
DESIGNATION OF ACTING SOLICITOR OF LABOR Eugene Scalia, now serving as the Solicitor for the Department of Labor under a recess appointment, could be given a second position in the non-career Senior Executive
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 07-689 In the Supreme Court of the United States GARY BARTLETT, ET AL., v. Petitioners, DWIGHT STRICKLAND, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the North Carolina Supreme Court
More informationJudicial Recess Appointments: A Survey of the Arguments
Judicial Recess Appointments: A Survey of the Arguments An Addendum Lawrence J.C. VanDyke, Esq. (Dallas, Texas) The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy initiatives.
More informationCase 1:00-cv RBW Document 176 Filed 12/11/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:00-cv-02502-RBW Document 176 Filed 12/11/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ROSEMARY LOVE, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 00-2502 (RBW)
More informationIN THE Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-71 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF ARIZONA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationCase 2:06-cv LKK-GGH Document 96 Filed 02/09/2007 Page 1 of 11
Case :0-cv-0-LKK-GGH Document Filed 0/0/00 Page of 0 JOHN DOE, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NO. CIV. S-0- LKK/GGH Plaintiff, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of
More informationThe Constitution in One Sentence: Understanding the Tenth Amendment
January 10, 2011 Constitutional Guidance for Lawmakers The Constitution in One Sentence: Understanding the Tenth Amendment In a certain sense, the Tenth Amendment the last of the 10 amendments that make
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 20 September 2016
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA15-1381 Filed: 20 September 2016 Wake County, No. 15 CVS 4434 GILBERT BREEDLOVE and THOMAS HOLLAND, Plaintiffs v. MARION R. WARREN, in his official capacity
More informationMay 16, Law I Analysis
ALAN WILSON A TIORNEY GENERAL The Honorable Tom Young, Jr. Member, House of Representatives Post Office Box 651 Aiken, South Carolina 29802 Dear Representative Young: You have asked whether those persons
More informationCase 1:15-cv JEB Document 8-1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:15-cv-00730-JEB Document 8-1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY, Plaintiff, v. THE HONORABLE MITCH MCCONNELL SOLELY
More information[Vol. 15:2 AKRON LAW REVIEW
CIVIL RIGHTS Title VII * Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 0 Disclosure Policy Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Associated Dry Goods Corp. 101 S. Ct. 817 (1981) n Equal Employment Opportunity
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 17-387 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE, v. Petitioner, SHARLINE LUNDGREN AND RAY LUNDGREN, Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT
More informationSome Thoughts on Political Structure as Constitutional Law
Some Thoughts on Political Structure as Constitutional Law The Honorable John J. Gibbons * Certainly I am going to endorse everything that Professor Levinson has said about Professor Lynch s wonderful
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. WAYNE W. WILLIAMS, Colorado Secretary of State, in his individual capacity.
Civil Action No. POLLY BACA, and ROBERT NEMANICH, v. Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO WAYNE W. WILLIAMS, Colorado Secretary of State, in his individual capacity.
More informationCase 1:10-cv JDB Document 26 Filed 09/02/10 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:10-cv-00561-JDB Document 26 Filed 09/02/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STEPHEN LAROQUE, ANTHONY CUOMO, JOHN NIX, KLAY NORTHRUP, LEE RAYNOR, and KINSTON
More information2018 Visiting Day. Law School 101 Room 1E, 1 st Floor Gambrell Hall. Robert A. Schapiro Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Law
Law School 101 Room 1E, 1 st Floor Gambrell Hall Robert A. Schapiro Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Law Robert Schapiro has been a member of faculty since 1995. He served as dean of Emory Law from 2012-2017.
More informationU.S. Supreme Court 1998 Line Item Veto Act is Unconstitutional - Order Code A August 18, 1998
U.S. Supreme Court 1998 Line Item Veto Act is Unconstitutional - Order Code 98-690A August 18, 1998 Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress - Line Item Veto Act Unconstitutional: Clinton
More informationCIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV- COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF COMPLAINT
Case 1:16-cv-00452-TCB Document 1 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION COMMON CAUSE and GEORGIA STATE CONFERENCE OF
More informationAPPENDIX. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE [Docket #40] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
1a APPENDIX ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE [Docket #40] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [Filed May 3, 2003] SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL, et al., Ci No. 02-582 NRA, et al., Ci
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Project Vote, et al., : : Plaintiffs : Case No. 1:08cv2266 : v. : Judge James S. Gwin : Madison County Board of :
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 15-1251 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. SW GENERAL, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS SOUTHWEST AMBULANCE, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United
More informationMEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE ACCESS REVIEW COMMITTEE
APPLICABILITY OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT S NOTIFICATION PROVISION TO SECURITY CLEARANCE ADJUDICATIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ACCESS REVIEW COMMITTEE The notification requirement
More information5 Suits Against Federal Officers or Employees
5 Suits Against Federal Officers or Employees 5.01 INTRODUCTION TO SUITS AGAINST FEDERAL OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES Although the primary focus in this treatise is upon litigation claims against the federal
More informationTHE LEGALITY OF THE 2012 OBAMA RECESS APPOINTMENTS
THE LEGALITY OF THE 2012 OBAMA RECESS APPOINTMENTS Peter M. Shane Jacob E. Davis & Jacob E. Davis Chair in Law Moritz College of Law The Ohio State University The Text at Issue The President shall have
More informationUNITED STATES V. MORRISON 529 U.S. 598 (2000)
461 UNITED STATES V. MORRISON 529 U.S. 598 (2000) INTRODUCTION On September 13, 1994, 13981, also known as the Civil Rights Remedy, of the Violence Against Women Act was signed into law by President Clinton.
More informationCase 1:19-cv Document 1 Filed 01/09/19 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:19-cv-00050 Document 1 Filed 01/09/19 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION ) 1750 H Street, N.W. ) Washington, D.C. 20006,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 7 November 2017
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA17-367 Filed: 7 November 2017 Wake County, No. 16 CVS 15636 ROY A. COOPER, III, in his official capacity as GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff,
More informationCase 2:17-cv MJP Document 238 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 8
Case :-cv-0-mjp Document Filed 0/0/ Page of The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE RYAN KARNOSKI, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationNOTICES. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY [OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 96-l]
NOTICES OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL [OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 96-l] Department of Public Welfare; Enforceability of Durational Residency and Citizenship Requirement of Act 1996-35 December 9, 1996 Honorable
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-40238 Document: 00512980287 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT STATE OF TEXAS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) Case Number: 15-40238
More informationCase 1:12-cv MCA-RHS Document 20 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Case 1:12-cv-00421-MCA-RHS Document 20 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO JOHN W. JACKSON and 2ND ) AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) )
More informationDelta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 101 S. Ct (1981)
Florida State University Law Review Volume 9 Issue 4 Article 5 Fall 1981 Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 101 S. Ct. 1146 (1981) Robert L. Rothman Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr
More informationAPPLICABILITY OF 18 U.S.C. 207(c) TO THE BRIEFING AND ARGUING OF CASES IN WHICH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPRESENTS A PARTY
APPLICABILITY OF 18 U.S.C. 207(c) TO THE BRIEFING AND ARGUING OF CASES IN WHICH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPRESENTS A PARTY Section 207(c) of title 18 forbids a former senior employee of the Department
More informationCase 3:17-cv PRM Document 64 Filed 01/29/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION
Case 3:17-cv-00179-PRM Document 64 Filed 01/29/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff, v. EP-17-CV-00179-PRM-LS
More informationCase 1:17-cv TJK Document 22 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cv-02534-TJK Document 22 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LEANDRA ENGLISH, Deputy Director and Acting Director, Consumer Financial
More information[ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2018] No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #18-3052 Document #1760663 Filed: 11/19/2018 Page 1 of 17 [ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2018] No. 18-3052 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT IN RE:
More informationCase 1:05-cv DC Document 851 Filed 01/28/2010 Page 1 of 15
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 851 Filed 01/28/2010 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------X : The Authors
More informationImplications of Canning Case on CFPB Rules Raymond Natter February, 2013
Implications of Canning Case on CFPB Rules Raymond Natter February, 2013 This article reviews the recent court of appeals decision regarding President Obama s appointments to the National Labor Relations
More informationCase 1:06-cv RBW Document 20 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:06-cv-01773-RBW Document 20 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC FRONTIER : FOUNDATION, : : Civil Action No. 06-1773 Plaintiff, : :
More informationFEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES
898 674 FEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES held that the securities-law claim advanced several years later does not relate back to the original complaint. Anderson did not contest that decision in his initial
More informationVOTING RIGHTS. Haynes v. Wells, 538 S.E.2d 430 (Ga. 2000)
VOTING RIGHTS Haynes v. Wells, 538 S.E.2d 430 (Ga. 2000) Voting Rights: School Boards Under Georgia law, to qualify as a candidate for a school board, at the time at which he or she declares his or her
More informationAttorney Grievance Commission, et al. v. Ty Clevenger, No. 64, September Term, 2017
Attorney Grievance Commission, et al. v. Ty Clevenger, No. 64, September Term, 2017 JURISDICTION WRIT OF MANDAMUS ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION INVESTIGATIONS The Court of Appeals held that Bar Counsel
More informationMemorandum Supporting Model Constitutional or Statutory Provision for Supervision of Judges of Political Subdivision Courts
Memorandum Supporting Model Constitutional or Statutory Provision for Supervision of Judges of Political Subdivision Courts Introductory Note A variety of approaches to the supervision of judges of courts
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 1 1 1 0 1 McGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney KENDALL J. NEWMAN Assistant U.S. Attorney 01 I Street, Suite -0 Sacramento, CA 1 Telephone: ( -1 GREGORY G. KATSAS Acting Assistant Attorney General
More informationCERCLA SECTION 9658 AND STATE RULES OF REPOSE Two decades after passage, unanimity still elusive on basic question of statutory interpretation
CERCLA SECTION 9658 AND STATE RULES OF REPOSE Two decades after passage, unanimity still elusive on basic question of statutory interpretation Douglas S. Arnold Benjamin L. Snowden On January 25, 2008,
More informationAmerican population, and without any legal standards or restrictions, challenge the voter
R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge, dissenting. We have before us today a matter of historic proportions. In this appeal, partisan challengers, for the first time since the civil rights era, seek to target
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT. No In re Search Warrant for Records from AT&T
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT No. 2016-0187 In re Search Warrant for Records from AT&T State s Appeal Pursuant to RSA 606:10 from Judgment of the Second Circuit District Division - Plymouth
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY, ) 402 KING FARM BOULEVARD, SUITE 125-145 ) ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action ) No.15-0002442 B THE HONORABLE
More informationCase 2:16-cv AJS Document 125 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:16-cv-01375-AJS Document 125 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LISA GATHERS, et al., 16cv1375 v. Plaintiffs, LEAD CASE NEW YORK
More informationCase 3:10-cv BR Document 123 Filed 11/15/13 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 2969
Case 3:10-cv-00750-BR Document 123 Filed 11/15/13 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 2969 STUART F. DELERY Assistant Attorney General DIANE KELLEHER Assistant Branch Director AMY POWELL amy.powell@usdoj.gov LILY FAREL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-MHT-WHP Document 130 Filed 06/28/13 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS, et al.,
More informationInterpreting the Constitution (HAA)
Interpreting the Constitution (HAA) Although the Constitution provided a firm foundation for a new national government, it left much to be decided by those who put this plan into practice. Some provisions
More informationPlaintiffs, current and former governors of the State of North Carolina, by and through
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO.: 14-CVS- STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Upon the relation of, Patrick L. McCrory, individually
More informationRecess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions
Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions Henry B. Hogue Specialist in American National Government March 11, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS21308 Summary Under the Constitution
More informationCase 1:08-cv RWR-JMF Document 63 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cv-00961-RWR-JMF Document 63 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-961
More informationMemorandum. Florida County Court Clerks. National Center for Lesbian Rights and Equality Florida. Date: December 23, 2014
Memorandum To: From: Florida County Court Clerks National Center for Lesbian Rights and Equality Florida Date: December 23, 2014 Re: Duties of Florida County Court Clerks Regarding Issuance of Marriage
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:18-cv-04776-LMM Document 13-1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION RHONDA J. MARTIN, DANA BOWERS, JASMINE CLARK,
More informationCRS-2 morning and that the federal and state statutes violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 4 The Trial Court Decision. On July 21
Order Code RS21250 Updated July 20, 2006 The Constitutionality of Including the Phrase Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance Summary Henry Cohen Legislative Attorney American Law Division On June 26, 2002,
More informationJudicial Review of Unilateral Treaty Terminations
University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 10-1-1979 Judicial Review of Unilateral Treaty Terminations Deborah Seidel Chames Follow this and additional
More informationCase 1:08-cv RMU Document 53 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cv-00380-RMU Document 53 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPALACHIAN VOICES, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No.: 08-0380 (RMU) : v.
More informationCase 1:18-cv ELH Document 41 Filed 12/18/18 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 1:18-cv-0849-ELH Document 41 Filed 1/18/18 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND STATE OF MARYLAND, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 18-cv-849 (ELH) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
More informationHouse of Representatives v. Burwell and Congressional Standing to Sue
House of Representatives v. Burwell and Congressional Standing to Sue Alissa M. Dolan Legislative Attorney September 12, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44450 Summary On November
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION The League of Women Voters, et al. Case No. 3:04CV7622 Plaintiffs v. ORDER J. Kenneth Blackwell, Defendant This is
More informationAPPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Vilas County: NEAL A. NIELSEN, III, Judge. Affirmed. Before Hoover, P.J., Stark and Hruz, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 10, 2015 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1999) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 97 930 VICTORIA BUCKLEY, SECRETARY OF STATE OF COLORADO, PETITIONER v. AMERICAN CONSTITU- TIONAL LAW FOUNDATION, INC., ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
More informationTHE FUTURE OF GUINN V. LEGISLATURE
THE FUTURE OF GUINN V. LEGISLATURE Troy L. Atkinson* United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson best articulated the human element, giving life to the Nation's Highest Court, when he stated: "We
More informationCase 1:16-cv LY Document 50 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Case 1:16-cv-00845-LY Document 50 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION DR. JENNIFER LYNN GLASS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 1:16-cv-845-LY
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 12/05/17 Page 1 of 15. Plaintiff, Case No. 17 Civ. 9536
Case 1:17-cv-09536 Document 1 Filed 12/05/17 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LOWER EAST SIDE PEOPLE S FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, on behalf of itself and its members,
More informationCase 5:13-cv EFM-DJW Document 1 Filed 08/21/13 Page 1 of 31 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 5:13-cv-04095-EFM-DJW Document 1 Filed 08/21/13 Page 1 of 31 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS KRIS W. KOBACH, KANSAS ) SECRETARY OF STATE; ) ) KEN BENNETT, ARIZONA )
More informationBRIEF IN OPPOSITION FOR RESPONDENT HARRY NISKA
No. 14-443 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States BONN CLAYTON, Petitioner, v. HARRY NISKA, et al., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 104,761. DOWNTOWN BAR AND GRILL, LLC, Appellee, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 104,761 DOWNTOWN BAR AND GRILL, LLC, Appellee, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. discretion. An appellate court reviews the grant or
More informationQuestion: Answer: I. Severability
Question: When an amendment to the Florida constitution, which has been approved by voters, contains a section that is inconsistent with the rest of the amendment, how can the inconsistent section be legally
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:17-cv-02185-PJS-HB Document 49 Filed 11/16/17 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ATIF F. BHATTI, et al., v. Plaintiffs, THE FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, et al., Defendants.
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 February 2012
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. MEMORANDUM OPINION (June 14, 2016)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SIERRA CLUB, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and GINA McCARTHY, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection
More informationCase 1:06-cv LFO Document 18 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:06-cv-00614-LFO Document 18 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) THE CHRISTIAN CIVIC LEAGUE ) OF MAINE, INC. ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No.
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NICOLE A. DALMAZZI, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed
More informationSEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER V. FLORIDA ET AL. 517 U.S. 44 (1996)
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER V. FLORIDA ET AL. 517 U.S. 44 (1996) CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides that an Indian tribe may
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
Brown et al v. Herbert et al Doc. 69 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION KODY BROWN, MERI BROWN, JANELLE BROWN, CHRISTINE BROWN, ROBYN SULLIVAN, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 10-1014 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- COMMONWEALTH OF
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 103 September Term, WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION, et al. COLLEEN BOWEN, et al.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 103 September Term, 2007 WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION, et al. v. COLLEEN BOWEN, et al. Bell, C. J. * Raker Harrell Battaglia Greene Eldridge, John C.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE COLORADO REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE
Appellate Case: 18-1173 Document: 010110044958 010110045992 Date Filed: 08/29/2018 08/31/2018 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL BACA, POLLY BACA, and ROBERT NEMANICH,
More informationCase 1:10-cv JDB Document 41 Filed 09/16/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-00651-JDB Document 41 Filed 09/16/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10-0651 (JDB) ERIC H. HOLDER,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued February 16, 2007 Decided April 6, 2007 No. 06-5324 MOHAMMAD MUNAF AND MAISOON MOHAMMED, AS NEXT FRIEND OF MOHAMMAD MUNAF, APPELLANTS
More information2:14-cv RMG Date Filed 11/03/14 Entry Number 27 Page 1 of 13
2:14-cv-04010-RMG Date Filed 11/03/14 Entry Number 27 Page 1 of 13 Colleen Therese Condon and Anne Nichols Bleckley, Plaintiffs, v. Nimrata (Nikki Randhawa Haley, in her official capacity as Governor of
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPINION AND ORDER
Case 4:02-cv-00427-GKF-FHM Document 79 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/31/2009 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA WILLIAM S. FLETCHER, CHARLES A. PRATT, JUANITA
More informationCase 5:10-cv M Document 7 Filed 11/09/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:10-cv-01186-M Document 7 Filed 11/09/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA MUNEER AWAD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. CIV-10-1186-M ) PAUL ZIRIAX,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION. Plaintiff,
Case :-cv-0-sjo-ss Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California PETER K. SOUTHWORTH Supervising Deputy Attorney General JONATHAN M. EISENBERG Deputy Attorney
More information